Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Jesus: The Alternative to Legalism

As
I review the wild ride that the past two weeks have afforded me, I feel the
need to recap for those who may have gotten lost in the details or on one of
the side trails that seemed to materialize out of thin air. I will make my main
points larger in an effort to promote clarity.My
original post took the form of a question, born out of the passion of an
experience. Not a new experience, sadly, but an experience which with each new
occurrence burns more deeply into my conscience a question for me… How can
you remain silent? For many years it was not hard to remain silent. What
difference would my voice make anyway? And what do I have to offer other than
just my preference or my opinion? Well,
the years have come and gone. I have now experienced life in ways that at one
time I only pondered from a distance. I have been a child, an adolescent, an
adult, a student, a teacher, a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, and a
seeker of truth. From the time I was in public Jr. High school the most
important people in my life helped me insist on “squeezing” all of life to get
out of it what is true and valuable. I have lived long enough to see some of
the results of living that way. I have also carefully watched the lives of
others who have chosen different paths, and I have now lived long enough to
have learned somewhat from their experience as well as mine.The
issue that my original post was galvanized around has been described as a “hot-button”
issue. Some have accused me of intentionally using it to create a ruckus. The
fact is, while I am fully aware of the energy with which it is defended and
condemned, I am also fully aware that there are honest-hearted people on both
sides. There are those, who because of how they were raised, can’t imagine why
anyone who is committed to purity, simplicity, and modestly would want to adorn
themselves with gold; and there are those, who because of how they were raised,
can’t imagine why anyone who is committed in marriage would not want to
proclaim that fact to the world. But
my original post was carefully limited
to those who fall in the first category--those who were raised without jewelry
but who now want to make a change.None
of us can choose our own parents, but all of us must at some point choose our
own path, and it is at this critical point that culture propagates or begins to
disintegrate. Now, I am fully aware that just because a culture exists is no
proof that it ought to. But on the other hand, just because most of the world
is different is no proof that we should all be like them. However,
it has been my experience that for most people who change, it comes down to one
thing; is it lawful? No matter what concerns are raised, the response is the
same, “There is no law against it. It's only tradition.” To the concern raised
about loss of past relationships, the answer is “There is no law against it. It's
only tradition.” To the concern about future influence, the answer is “There is
no law against it. It's only tradition.” To the concern that it opens a door of
opportunity to the flesh, the answer is "There is no law against it. It's
only tradition." To the concern that for some it becomes an item of
idolatry, the answer is the same, “There is no law against it. It's only
tradition.” A
troubling pattern has quickly become evident.
To this I say, wait a minute! Look at what you are doing!You are rejecting an old legalism as
illegitimate only to embrace a new legalism which is more radical; a
legalism which says not only “there is no law against it” but further says, “There
is nothing else to consider but the issue of legality” and further “if I lose
any relationships over this 'non-issue' they weren’t worth much anyway!” This
is astonishing logic! There
is a strong tendency in conservative circles of most stripes to be generally
suspicious of thinking and of people who advocate it. I dare say that more than
one person reading this blog has been told, at some point in their life, something like, “You need to quit
thinking and just do what you’re told.” This is a serious mistake. If we don’t
develop and hone the skills of right thinking, the world and the conversation
about truth will be dominated by Sophists and prejudice. I
have held off engaging in the following response to an earlier comment because
I didn’t want to be overly harsh toward any particular commenter. As usual, I’m
leaving the name off because my response is to the ideas not the personality.
As I have previously stated, there are times I seek counsel when I blog. I have
done so in the following response. The original comment is in blue, my response in
black. Readers, you must understand, this is a direct response to ideas that
challenge the validity and foundation of everything I have expressed. For
me, the approach used by this commenter is an example of what gives
"thinking" a bad name. My response is straightforward but from a
heart that says, “Abba, I write in Your presence, fully aware that I am
human and will stand corrected if I error in discernment. Since I have
carefully, prayerfully pursued an understanding of what we are discussing here,
I submit this with open palms, while fully convinced we are discussing ideas
that have led many of my precious CHM comrades away.” I care. That is why
I write. A commenter (in blue) says: I’d like you to examine the question even
further than currently done, though. And please note: This is just for deeper
reflection, and the sake of truth – following the Spirit of Truth into all
truth, even when it is not comfortable for tradition. I respect your life, and
respect your heart-felt dialogue with others – all this is being stated as a
brother in Christ, with no desire to prove a point, other than all of us being
better followers of Jesus.

First, please note a hidden assumption in your question: The question as framed
necessarily implies that the item at issue [namely, NOT wearing wedding ring]
is a valid principle of divine law/will. Otherwise it would not even be asked.This
is false. My original question was "was it worth it?" There is a
wholly unhidden assumption which the context fully illuminates. That assumption
is not that "the issue is a valid principle of divine law/will." That
assumption is that "there is something of value to be lost by those who are
raised this way and change." I explicitly label the issue as
"valuable admonition;" this is neither the linguistic nor logic equivalent
of "divine law/will." I explicitly characterize what is lost as
"an influence over thousands of needy souls." This commenter's
assertion has no basis in fact. There is no "necessity" that an issue
be "a valid principle of divine law/will" in order to ask if it has
value. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:12, "All things are
lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me,
but I will not be brought under the power of any."I intentionally
follow Paul's mind in my question by asserting there is something of value here
beyond legal mindedness.

Second, flowing from the unspoken
legitimacy given to the original issue in the question, it treats the wearer
of the ring as the party guilty of breaking the covenantal fellowship. Very
crucial, this unstated assumption and application!

If you strip all the logical red herring out of this paragraph you get something
like this: “Second, it treats the wearer of the ring as the party
guilty of breaking the covenantal fellowship.”

OK,
therefore what? The CHM is made up of a number of organizations. Organizations
have rules. If you want to be a member of an organization you play by the
rules. What is the commenter's point? Well, the choice of words and the use of
bold type seem to suggest that to "treat the wearer of the ring as the
party guilty of breaking the covenantal fellowship" is somehow
wrong. In fact the commenter makes no cogent argument of any kind with this
paragraph. But to the possible implication, I will say it is pure sophistry to
argue literally or by innuendo that all members of an organization are somehow
"guilty" if they refuse to accept one member's decision to change the
rules.

Be aware that this is the precise logic
that the religious elites of Jesus’ day used against Him. Among other things,
they asked in not so many words:

• Jesus, is it worth it to break fellowship with your religious friends over
healing on the Sabbath? Couldn’t you just as easily wait till Sunday or Monday
to heal?
• Jesus, is it worth it to be ostracized for shucking corn on the Sabbath?
After all, that is specifically mentioned in our traditional application of the
law – you are needlessly breaking fellowship with the true church!
• Jesus, really, is it worth it to drink wine and eat with sinners? Everyone is
calling you a winebibber and a glutton! You certainly aren’t reflecting well on
our holy traditions, and you are risking your fellowship w. our conservative
synagogues.

My
friend, you are playing fast and loose with scripture here. I wish I could
plead ignorance for you but that would be a hard case to make. I don't know
what theologians call this kind of interpretation of scripture, but in the
secular world professionals lose their jobs for tricks like this. Your
prejudice has simply taken the original words and facts out and replaced them
with the words and facts that make the point you want to make. Both of the
first two incidents to which you refer involve the Pharisees. The Pharisees
make no distinction between "tradition" and "law." For them
their tradition is the law of God. In the text they specifically are concerned
with whether the behaviors are "lawful." There is no textual
justification for inserting the concepts of "breaking fellowship" or
being "ostracized." This is simply a reckless attempt to create a
parallel where there is none. In fact, the logic of the Pharisees is not "the precise
logic" of my post. I have clearly claimed the issue involves something
of value apart from "lawfulness." The only thing the Pharisees care
about is "lawfulness."

Etc.

The necessary position of the religious elites is that their view of divine
law/will is completely valid, therefore the breaking of fellowship is on the
head of Jesus and NOT their own. Their necessary position is that Jesus is NOT
doing these things for the sake of TRUTH [and truly following/revealing divine
will] but for the sake of personal freedom – and woefully misguided in that,
even to the eventual point where they blame Him for His own death. ‘He made
himself to be God after all – and we know He couldn’t be from God, for He didn’t
honor our traditions. He didn’t keep fellowship with us.’

The
repeated insertion of the word "necessary" is a distraction. What is
the point of saying it is a "necessary position to hold that one's view of
divine law is completely valid"? Have you ever known someone to hold a
view that they thought was invalid?

Their necessary position is that Jesus is
NOT doing these things for the sake of TRUTH [and truly following/revealing
divine will] but for the sake of personal freedom –

Not
only is this not "necessary," it’s not even true. The Pharisees
didn't think in terms of the categories "TRUTH" vs. "personal
freedom." History is clear, scripture is clear; their only concern with
regard to behavior was "is it lawful." Once again you have inserted
the language you want to use into scripture. This does not transform your notions
into being "scriptural."

Please note that I’m not putting the CHM
on a level with the religious elites of Jesus day, Laura. I’m only showing that
the underlying religious logic is the same, when for the sake of a wedding ring
covenantal fellowship is broken, etc.

This
is a wholly disingenuous contrivance. If I or the CHM or you or anyone is found
to be using the same "precise logic" as the Pharisees, why wouldn't
we be on the same level? It is wrong to demonize the Pharisees, to put them in
a category that is so bad no one else could really be that way. We are the ones
who crucified Jesus—we, the human race. And if we continue to refuse His mind
and to think legalistically, we crucify Him anew.

So, with that in mind, I
would respectfully say that the question you ask is flawed in assumption.

There
is no flawed assumption behind my question "Is it worth it." It is
based on 1Cor 6:12.

And for the sake of truth, I would ask a
different question, hopefully one that you can agree with – even after much
soul-searching. And here is the question: Is it possible for a
person to be truly holy – holy in the sense of divine holiness, and not
traditional holiness – and break fellowship with another Christian over a
wedding ring?

"And
for the sake of truth"? I've yet to see any evidence of your interest in
objective truth. However, at every opportunity you promote your prejudice. Again
here we see not a neutral question offered for the sake of truth. This is a
half-stated thesis dressed up in the garb of a question. It seems that what you
want to say is "breaking fellowship with another Christian over a wedding
ring is wrong." You then encumber the whole point with some sort of
technical distinction between "true holiness" and "traditional
holiness"... it seems that one of them is "divine"... wouldn't
it be nice to be able to prove that the CHM doesn't even have "true
holiness" since they break fellowship over a wedding ring? The whole thing
is more of the same. A "new" legal opinion advanced for the purpose
of pinning a label on someone else.

If
you are really interested in a question "for the sake of truth" you
will need to start out with no pre-judgment. No inclination. No preference.
Then you need to ask, what is the question? Can I ask a question without
prejudging or influencing the outcome?

The answer to that question
calls into stark relief the entire house of cards of the CHM. The entire
edifice of a movement that would ban people from its programs, platforms and
fellowship over such a thing rests on the answer to this question.

The
house of cards my post calls into question is not the CHM but legalism, whether
inside the CHM or out; legalism, not as a fuzzy notion of “restrictions and
bans” but legalism as a mode of thinking—a mode of thinking which bases right
and wrong on law; a mode of thinking which says to God (or anyone), “You can’t
criticize me; I did what you said;” a mode of thinking which in radical form even says, “You can’t
criticize me…there is no law against what I am doing.”

Legalism
is wrong for Christians not because it’s intrinsically evil. You can’t raise
children or have an ordered society without it. Paul notes “the law was our
schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” Legalism is wrong for Christians because
it’s not Christian. The Christian basis for right and wrong is Christ himself,
not Christ as a new basis for law minded thinking, not the mind which says
"if Jesus did it so can I" but the mind which says to the Father,
"Yes, Daddy," a mind which says to God, "I trust fully in Your example
of right thinking. I embrace Jesus as the only pattern of thinking by which to
please you."

Now,
if you begin to follow Jesus, you soon become aware of an entrenched obstacle…what
I want, my will. Not just my will on a single decision but my will about what
is valuable, what is good, how to treat those who don’t like me, in fact how to
conduct myself in every aspect of life. Choosing to follow Jesus beyond this
point will change everything about your life, because it requires you “to die.” To die: to yourself, to all you have been,
to all that you want to be.

It
is only in following Jesus through the garden and to the cross, even to the
point of dying, that we find new life as He did. With every step through the
garden, every agonizing foot to the cross, in every drop of blood He shed,
Jesus is speaking to the Father for the whole world to see, “Not my will, but
Thine be done.”

We
sometimes overemphasize the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death. Yes, He died
for us, but He also died as God’s example of how we must die if we are to find
life in Him.

My
friend, from my experience, I can say you greatly misjudge the CHM.

Yes,
we have plenty of baggage. Yes, we manage to camouflage the essential elements
of the message to the point that often our own children don’t even get it. But
also, yes, I find here a remnant who are living the truth that the only way to
please God is with a heart and life that fully embraces God’s example for man;
a heart and life which proclaim, “Not my will but Thine."

Welcome!

A Glimpse of our Family:

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a wife, a mom, and a musician. I am married to my dearest friend, an attorney, who specializes in Estate Planning. I home-educated our two daughters, LaRae and Rachelle. (What a joy it was!)

LaRae, presently living in England, is pursuing her Doctorate of Philosophy in Ancient Greek Language and Literature at Oxford University.

Rachelle graduated from Hillsdale College in May of 2017, an English and Classics double major. She is writing, teaching Latin and English, and is tutoring various other high school subjects. She is building her Kittywham Productions, a publishing company that offers skits and dramas from a Christian perspective. Check out her company! kittywhamproductions.com

May these glimpses of our world be helpful to you, dear reader, in at least some small way.

Feel free to contact me at lauralavon@gmail.com.

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." ~C.S. Lewis

So, since we have come to be considered righteous by God because of our trust, let us continue to have shalom with God through our Lord, Yeshua the Messiah.(Romans 5:1)

Facebook Badge

LaRae's blog

Rachelle's Website & Blog

Our Rachelle is selling dramas she has written! If you are looking for a drama for your church youth group or homeschool co-op that has meaning but is flavored with delightful humor, check out her website! Just click on her picture and it'll take you to her website.

Curt's Blog

New post Feb. 17, 2018

Curt W. Ferguson Attorney & Counsellor at Law

Curt is the founder and currently sole owner of the law firm called The Estate Planning Center. He started the firm in 1989 as a general law practice, but within a few years was concentrating his work in estate planning.

LaRae, at Oxford, where she is working on her D. Phil.

You can read some of her papers online at academia.edu. Just click on the picture.